Balance, Part 4: Triangles, Trinity and Triage

Last time, I wrote about what I’m calling the DNA Grid, my tactical RPG’s character advancement system. That happens to be only a part of the system, and stepping back a layer, there’s a triangle that I’m using to give the game’s three major factions flavor and unique functions while trying to give them asymmetrical balance.

It’s at least partially built on the old gaming triangle of Paper-Rock-Scissors. Paper beats Rock, Rock beats Scissors and Scissors beat Paper. (Or, as my family has played, Chicken-Pickle-Elvis. Chicken eats Pickle, Elvis eats Chicken, Pickle chokes Elvis. Long road trips and tired kids make for interesting game design.) The Fire Emblem games use other triangles that function almost in the same way, Axe-Sword-Spear, Wind-Thunder-Fire or Anima-Light-Dark. They aren’t absolute triangles, they are just advantages, but they can be key in combat. They also have some outliers like triangle-reversing weapons, knives, ranged weapons and healing, but the core triangle interactions are going to cover the bulk of combat.

DNA Codex Full

My design uses Strength, Agility and Focus. Like the FE games, it’s not an absolute triangle, but rather, it’s a series of advantages. Strength has an edge over Focus, Focus has an edge over Agility and Agility has an edge over Strength. Each should perform mostly the same in the DPM (Damage Per Minute) over time against a neutral target. Strength units hit harder but less frequently and with low critical rates, Agility units hit more often but with less power, also with low critical rates, and Focus units have power between those two, but act infrequency with high critical rates. The RNG (Random Number Generator) makes the Focus units more “swingy” or “spiky” than the other two unit types (with an uneven damage distribution), but over time, all three should be more or less even. Of course, the point is to play to your strengths tactically, and make your units more effective by how you use them. That will be different with each type, if I do it right.

Key to this balance is how the metric for “over time” is chosen, or more accurately, how the DPM is split up into discrete attacks when it comes to balancing numbers. If there are too few samples per minute, Focus units will be too erratic. If there are too many samples required to create balance, the pacing of the game can suffer. I’d like the baseline combat session to have about three segments of “balanced” time, or, put another way, enough time for a unit of each type to defeat three neutral units in roughly the same overall time. If the Focus unit defeats one foe early thanks to a lucky critical hit, it might take a little longer on another unit as the RNG swings the other way, but over those three time segments, it should be roughly on par with the others.

These are rough ballpark guesstimates, by the way. Balance is an iterative beastie, and this may well require some more tinkering. That’s the point of playtesting, and why early playable prototypes are important… but that’s another article, perhaps.

Anyway, back to the DNA Grid, each type of unit, Strength, Agility and Focus, has a separate third of this overall grid (they won’t have access to the whole tripartite grid, just their section). Combine that with the RNA Salvaging mechanic (units can steal RNA from foes they defeat, no matter the unit type), and the flexibility of a unit’s “build” can be pretty crazy. A Focus unit might be able to use a midlevel Strength RNA sequence to shore up its baseline damage, or use an Agility RNA sequence to increase the frequency of its attacks. The shape of the DNA Grid means that each type will have exclusive RNA sequences (and choosing a five-unit long exclusive RNA sequence locks out three-unit long RNA sequences from other types), but there’s room to tinker and fudge things around to tailor the play experience. Since you’re tasked with controlling a squad of units instead of just one, you can make specialists or generalists, whichever befits your tactical style.

This, for example, is a Strength unit using a 5-wide Strength RNA Sequence, a 4-wide Strength RNA Sequence and all three units using the same 3-wide Strength RNA Sequence. Note that the 3-wide cuts off different options for the Agility unit and the Focus unit. The Focus unit could use that 3-wide Strength RNA Sequence and four 4-wide Focus RNA Sequences, but the Agility unit is more constrained when it’s using Strength “offspec” RNA, a simple byproduct of the geometry of their DNA grids.

Strength RNA Sequences

…and yes, I know that I’m going to have to make cleaner and cooler UI design for usability on this. This is by no means the final art. I need to communicate base type and function for each RNA Sequence… though maybe the base type is implicit in the shape. Of course, when you get shapes that bend around a corner into two major axes, well, that’s another thing yet again… and maybe a good reason to just let the shape do the communicating.

———————————————————-

But speaking of triangles, what of the (un)Holy Trinity of HP-depletion based game design? So long as there is damage to be dealt, damage to be avoided and a healing fudge factor, are we stuck with the trinity of “tank/damage dealer (DPS)/healer”? Well, a few links are in order to start with, perhaps:

To that end, I’m adopting a triage model, effectively the Battletech “battle of attrition” model with a slight healing fudge factor on top. I’ve taken to thinking of it as a sort of multipart boxing match, a battle less about who gets in the big hits, and more about who can take the hits and keep going. (This being what some boxing aficionados would have one believe is the heart of boxing.) I want a battle of endurance where units aren’t always healing through big unavoidable damage, or finishing a fight in pristine condition. Real fights hurt, and the winner is all too often just the last guy standing, no matter his condition.

As such, I’m going to push healing to the curb a bit. I still like that healing can be a fudge factor for tactical mistakes, but on the other hand, if a single mistake doesn’t hurt as much, it’s not as necessary. That’s where I’m coming from on this, at least. I intend to avoid OHKO (One Hit Knock Out) moves, and make each fight be one where smart tactics of positioning, careful target selection, communication (AI units can communicate across certain distances), focused fire and careful planning carry the day.

Healing will be changed under this triage and attrition model. Each unit can perform a small self-heal or heal another unit, but those actions cost time, and sometimes time is the most important element.

…but time is a big topic for another article. Balance, Part 5… when I get it put together.

Still, when each unit can afford to take a handful of hits, the hope is that healing won’t be quite as necessary as a fudge factor, and the focus can be on smart offensive tactics rather than simply wading in and healing through mistakes. Again, playtesting will be crucial here, to make sure this winds up being fun without being onerous, and that the tactical play can stand on its own without players leaning on the healing crutch. It will be a lot of number crunching, I think, and some systems analysis, but I think it can work.

Battletech is very playable, after all, and it has no healing at all in most iterations of the game. Repairs come after the mission is done, not during combat. (The MechCommander games played a bit with this by including Repair Bays, which changed the game significantly in some cases, though they notably only used them for longer, tougher missions. That seems like a fair compromise to me.) Similarly, Fire Emblem games tend to have sparse and somewhat weak healing, making smart tactics more important.

Short story long, I’m not opposed to healing as a fudge factor, I just want to see if I can shift the focus to a different set of tactics. Healing works, but as with the holy trinity of MMO combat, it’s not the only way to do things.

There’s a lot to consider in my design still, but these, as always, are submitted to public airing in the hopes that they can spur thought and discussion. My design is by no means the One True Way to design games, it’s just the way I’m doing things, for better or worse. And, as noted before, I’m not much of a programmer. I’m not certain at all that this will ever be made. Still, it’s nice to at least go through the logic and think things through, especially if what I present here can help someone else.

See you next time!

Oh, and just for fun, if all this blather of game design hasn’t bored you yet, and the industry interests you, try this:

Maybe there’s good reason I’m instinctively writing first about the game design, rather than start with the story/setting and snazzy concept art. Y’see, I’d rather have substance over style. I can add style very easily (and indeed, the terminology I’m using is certainly not inviolate if I come up with a more flavorful theme)… getting the core game down right is more important to me.

It was published on Gamasutra instead of my blog, but might be interesting to people thinking about the trinity design in MMOs.

As for rock-paper-scissors, I’ve never been fond of that design pattern. I think it leads to degenerate strategies in most games. MMO PvP, for example, really sucks when you’re paper in a field full of scissors.

That said, your design concept looks interesting and I look forward to reading more detail, Tesh.

Brian, many thanks for the link! I knew that I was forgetting something. I read that article a while back and loved it. I meant to link to it, but this got overlong (obviously) and I lost it in the shuffle.

I’m not overly fond of a hard paper-rock-scissors either, but I like the flavor that it gives when it’s a modifier. I’d also like to make sure that a player has all three at their disposal (which I have neglected to point out thus far), so they can field a team that can handle many situations. You’re absolutely right, if you’re stuck with one type of unit and are pitted against your natural nemesis, you’re busted. That’s no fun. (And this *is* a team-based game where the player controls a handful of units that they select, so if they wade in with a single type and try to play to their strengths, that’s their choice.)

Fire Emblem does the triangle almost a little too strongly for my taste, actually, so that’s as far as I’d push it here. Still, I like that such a system can give impetus for tactical decisions. You can’t just throw your heavily armored Knight over on the west chokepoint and hope he does OK against a bunch of axe-wielding pirates. You would be better off putting a solid swordsman there and keeping a healer nearby. It pays off to pay attention to enemy units and plan for the whole battle instead of just “tanks in front, DPS behind, healers follow”.

Now, as it happens, the natural status and attributes of my different types of units may provide all the tactical variety I need. The “combat edge” inherent to this triangle may just be overkill, in which case, I really won’t mind losing it. I’ll keep the grids because I like how they function, but the inherent combat edge may wind up not being necessary at all.

Battletech actually isn’t that playable at all past the first box set. When you play it seriously, the flaws start to show.

It works though only if you take the original conceit: that mechs are powerful, but rare, and technology was limited. The original box set was very good design, with a small amount of weapons designed not just for damage, but for drawbacks and survivability. The LRMs did massive damage but scattered it. PPCs did high damage but required managing heat due to limited heatsinks. Autocannons did poor damage but had little heat burden and strong range.

They killed the system dead when they started to add new weapons. The gauss rifle crippled the game, imo. Huge range, insane damage, no heat burden. It gave heavies and assaults an “i win” button over mediums and lights, and they soon dominated mech construction. Double heatsinks enabled for safer alpha strikes, endo steel skeltons allowed for players to pack more armor and more guns, and then you had to throw in the clan weaponry which were improved versions of virtually every weapon.

You can take two mechs to illustrate the right and wrong of it. The best and truest mech to the spirit of the game was the lowly urbanmech, limited, but making complete and total sense: a cheap mech designed to garrison cities, designed to fight other light mechs.

The mad cat was everything that was wrong with the new battletech. They took probably one of the most well designed and balanced heavies, the catapult, broke the games rules with clan equipment, and turned it into an ungainly, overpowered mess. The clan storyline was brilliant, but in gameplay terms the tech shouldn’t have existed-it was too game breaking.

I think this shows a 5th part of balance, balance to the game’s own lore or pivotal design. FFXI had summoners supposed to be rare, and a dangerous forgotten magic, but everyone could be a summoner. BT has mechs as salvaged and rare war machines very costly to deploy and maintain, but soon everyone and their mother was fielding assaults on the ground, back when an assault was limited to a command mech, and most were light/medum mech engagements.

Too often game mechanics exist independently from story. Why do people throw each other around in disgaea? It can make for cool effects when absurd enough, but this kind of balance matters some too.

That sounds like you have a lot of work ahead! 🙂
I hadn’t seen quite a few of those other trinity links, so I shall read them with great interest.

And I agree that it’s okay for healing to play a ‘fudge factor’, as long as it does not nearly become so powerful to play a central role in your gameplay. healing is and should be precious. I think Darkfall managed to show this rather well and in essence you find the same in many FPS where you got medic packs that will heal for a little, but overall won’t decide over lose or win. that I can certainly endorse as it’s “in sync” with what I consider an “authentic” mechanic.

DBlade, You’re right about Battletech… but that’s a problem with power creep, not so much baseline design. We see that in WoW, sometimes to an absurd degree. Still, point well made, sir, and I agree. I really like the core BT design, and I’m angling for something more along those lines.

Disgaea presents several tidbits of weirdness. The “stack characters to throw across the screen” bit is fun, but yeah, it’s so out there conceptually that it’s not really going to fit into a less wacky game. The whole “level to 9999” schtick and “rebirth” class change mechanic can make for some absurdly powerful characters… but the time cost is insane. The power band (a fresh level 1 character vs. a maxxed character) is crazy. Going *into* gear for dungeon crawling is flat out weird, and the geopanel system is kooky but useful.

I like the game, but it’s not really the branch of SRPG design that I’m chasing. You’re right that it illustrates a point, though; decide on the core design and go from there. I’m angling for something closer to what I think of as “classic” Battletech; the simpler, less swingy design.

Tangentially, I’m looking forward to the MechWarrior reboot (assuming it actually happens). I read somewhere that they want light ‘Mechs to matter again, partially by making recon valuable and maybe going urban again. It will be interesting to see how they make each weight class work together. I have a similar design goal; each unit should be useful, and not just for cannon fodder.

Syl, good call on the FPS healing. There’s also the fudge factor of personal shields, seen in Earthsiege, Tie Fighter, Protoss (StarCraft) and Halo, albeit in different guises. Shields effectively fill the function of a “renewable” health resource, a sort of “prehealing” system. Those are useful systems… but I like the attrition/triage model for the choices that it prompts. I won’t avoid shields and healing, but they won’t be very powerful.

It’s not really power creep I think because power creep is possible in the universe. There was lostech, but mechs just stopped being rare. The idea of cost became less and less of a factor in normal play.

If you like the novels, a really good series showing how it should work was Victor Milan’s Caballero’s Commanchero’s books. It avoided the Stackpole trap of “give everyone a daishi” and I really wish they would use them as a foundation for a game. Lights were as integral as heavies.

A thought on ‘Mech cost… I agree, I’ve seen the BT universe become more “rich” with time, but at the same time, isn’t that just one way to advance the larger picture of an IP? These guys are fighting pretty much constantly, especially once the Clans enter the picture, so wouldn’t they naturally try to up their production? I know, maybe that’s a copout, but I do think that’s a valid narrative arc.

It does make me think a bit more about the layer one step removed from the tactics, though. That strategic layer of actually running a campaign also interests me, and I’d like to include some of that in my game. Maybe that’s too much for the scope of what I’m *actually* doing, but I’ve always liked a tactics game that offers more than just a string of tactical skirmishes; one that digs more into the larger narrative and actually lets players have a hand in molding the long term strategies.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendations. I’ve been looking for some more to pick up. I’ll definitely check those out.

[…] 25th Anniversary. (Hey, GOG.com, when do we get that one?) When it was noted that there would be tanks, healers and DPS roles in ‘Trek combat, I shook my head and shrugged. When it was announced that it would require […]